Washington DC's derecho – not something new

Derechoes have been in the news in Washington as of late. No, that’s not some new breed of super bureaucrat, but it is something from a supercell sized thunderstorm that crossed several states during its lifetime. You may have seen this NOAA image already on a few news websites:

That’s a time lapse radar image capture as the storm progressed from near Chicago to Chesapeake Bay.

They’ve been known over a century, and around far longer than that. Wikipedia says that Derecho comes from the Spanish word for “straight”.The word was first used in the American Meteorological Journal in 1888 by Gustavus Detlef Hinrichs in a paper describing the phenomenon and based on a significant derecho event that crossed Iowa on 31 July 1877.

They were further refined with the advent of weather radar. Derechos are typically bow or spearhead-shaped on weather radar, and hence they are also called a bow echo or spearhead radar echo. Here’s a WSR-57 radar image from Cleveland, Ohio in 1969:

A radar in Akron, Ohio observed a “bowed” echo about 35 miles northwest of the radar site at 8:30 PM on the evening of July 4th (Fig. 2). This bow echo was associated with the deadly derecho winds in the Cleveland area and was one of the first radar “bow echoes” to be documented. Date 4 July 1969 Image: Wikipedia

They are fairly common meteorological events, occurring from May to August, peaking in frequency during the latter part of June into July. According to NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center, the Washington DC area gets a derecho about once every four years:

Image from NOAA Storm Prediction Center

Here’s a few of the past logged by the Storm Prediction Center.

NOTEWORTHY DERECHOS IN RECENT DECADES

Many significant derechos (i.e., those that have caused severe damage and/or casualties), have occurred over North America during the last few decades. Most of these affected the United States and Canada. Listed below is a selection of some of the more noteworthy events in recent years; the list is not all-inclusive. Information provided in the links includes a map of the area affected, and a description of the storm’s impact.

Holiday weekend events

The human impact of the following events was enhanced by their occurrence on summer holiday weekends, causing many to be caught out-of-doors during the sudden onset of high winds…

As the intensity of the heat wave, without reservation, was a key factor in the destructiveness of this derecho event – it raises the question about the possible role of manmade climate warming (from elevated greenhouse concentrations). It’s a complicated, controversial question, but one that scientists will surely grapple with in case studies of this rare, extraordinary event.

Yet Samenow cites the same sources from the Storm Prediction Center page that I do, showing the exact same image above (after editing out the number 3). Yet somehow, he managed to conveniently ignore the historical context and the climatological frequency of derechoes on that page.

UPDATE: I made an error. I got two different posts mixed up related to the heatwave, conflating the quote discussing the heat wave by Doug Kammerer (with thunderstorm radar loop in background video by Karins on the CP post) . I’ve removed the citation (and video) related to NBC Bill Karins quoted on Climate Progress. My sincere apologies for the error. My only defense is that I don’t listen to audio much anymore due to my hearing issues. Thankfully, I’ve got a big group of people that will let me know immediately that I’ve made an error, and thus I’ve heeded their advice and fixed the error within minutes of this posting. Thank you. – Anthony

65 thoughts on “Washington DC's derecho – not something new”

I posted (as TheChuckr) the list of Derechos since 1969 as well as 3 likely Derechos from 1756, 1809, and 1860. Naturally the global warming sycophants and faithful that generally populate the Washington Post ignored my posts.

I admire your research and whole heartily agree with you. However…first off, Doug Kammerer is the meteorologist in the video, not Bill Karins (name is in the title of the video). Second, I believe he was referring to the temperatures (heat) , not the Derecho event that had occurred. Not once did he mention the Derecho in his explanation of “global warming.” Nice explanation of a Derecho, though.REPLY: Yes, this is my fault, I tend not to listen to audio due to my hearing issues. I’ve removed the citation, and thank you for pointing it out. – Anthony

The first embedded video doesn’t show Karins. It is showing DC NBC4 Doug Kammerer and he said it didn’t mean anything other than we are seeing an unusual pattern.REPLY: Strange, I’ll see what went wrong. [later] Yes, this is my fault, I tend not to listen to audio due to my hearing issues. I’ve removed the citation, and thank you for pointing it out. – Anthony

@WUWT
“Here’s Karins on video:”
Re-check your link, on this video I see is Doug Kammerer commenting on the extreme heat, no mention of ‘derecho’
Yes ‘derecho’ is Spanish for ‘straight’ as in ‘straight line’, and is nothing new. Also called a “squall line” in English:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squall_line
😐REPLY: Yes, this is my fault, I tend not to listen to audio due to my hearing issues. I’ve removed the citation, and thank you for pointing it out. – Anthony

Chuck L: “It’s interesting that most of the listed Derechos occurred in the 1980′s (6) and the 1990′s (8) when (gasp!) C02 levels were lower.”
Since CO2 is lower than 2006 in the USA, I blame lower CO2.
“US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. ”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/05/usa-co2-emissions-fall-7-7/

They are sometimes regionally referred to as “blow downs” and many people assume the damage is caused by tornadoes because of the tree damage. The evidence of a blow down as opposed to a tornado is the direction of trees that are knocked over. With the former they are generally all in one direction, but in a tornado they are all over the place because of the rotational winds.

As soon as I saw an article referring to a “derecho,” I knew it would only be a matter of hours or days before it was being thrown around as something that either only happens or will happen more often due to climate change.

“maybe we’d see 101, 102 – not 104”
It doesn’t sound like he was blaming the existence of the Derecho on Global Warming – just the higher record temperatures. He is saying 2F-3F higher.
Nobody mentioned “man-made” global warming.
Nobody has disputed that there is global warming. (Natural warming that has been going on since the LIA.)
The actual warming is only about 0.5F and the rest to UHI but there is nothing untrue about what he said.REPLY: Yes, this is my fault, I tend not to listen to audio due to my hearing issues. I’ve removed the citation, and thank you for pointing it out. – Anthony

On another note, an “all-time record” doesn’t mean for all time because thermometers weren’t around for all time, only since about the 1850s in the mid-west. So maybe this fellow is a jokester and not a real weather man?

The rebound from the LIA should continue to set records. As long as individuals like these are allowed to characterize skeptics as believing that there is no warming taking place neither man made or part of natural cycles, the more they will smugly point to these records as proof of the effects of CO2. And the more points they score with the public. They need to be forced to differentiate the rate of warming of the first part of the 20th century with the last half. But wait there is no difference.

I was in the Ohio Fireworks event, at the Fairport Mardi Gras, a beachfront event. Cottonwood trees were torn apart with branches 10 inches in diameter in the air. All the tents were leveled and Lake Erie was blown right up onto the midway. It was wonderful.

I think we are seeing more and more cases where powerful tools like the NEXRAD-88D network in the hands of (computer graphics savvy and adept) veritable ‘children’ are able to reach rashly-derived conclusions without the benefit of hindsight (knowledge of similar past events), insight (not knowing the internal processes of T-storm genesis, meteorological conditions present including upper air/jet position) and an in-depth education (involving physics, thermodynamics/theory of heat transfer including IR radiation et al) in the field of meteorology …
Here is a scholarly article by meteorologists of the time in a 1991 event where the data for a Derecho event had to be assembled ‘by hand’ days and weeks after the fact before all the RADAR imagery was available in one place and this was done by trained meteorologists not a pair of ‘talking heads’ not invested in the ‘science’ underlying meteorology:
“Multiscale Review of the Development and Early Evolution of the 9 April 1991 Derecho”http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/papers/Duke_1992.pdf
At that time (1991) the WSR-88D network (1988 was the year the ‘contract’ was approved) had not been fully fielded at all intended RADAR sites; This required the analysts/researchers to hand-recover the notes and pictures (Polaroids – remember those?) taken off the WSR-57 and WSR-74(C and S versions) RADAR PPI (Plan Position Indicator) consoles that were taken at the time these weather events unfolded on each RADAR station’s PPI display console.
.

Wow… Squall Lines with Gale force winds, how totally underwhelming. One might have to put the patio umbrella down and into the garage. Imagine the complex life these alarmists must live where a slightly more energetic Squall Line exists in nature.

Great post. I was going to say merely that it’s worthwhile having a reference post about derechos, but the first one you listed answers a question my siblings I had recently that we weren’t quite able to answer.
On that July 4th, my parents were at my uncle’s summer home in NJ (the replacement house to the one destroyed in The Great Atlantic Storm of 1962″). I had finished my freshman year at CMU, my sister and brother were in high school. My sister had gone to a yacht club with friends, I was going to join them for fireworks later, my brother was at a carnival next to the lake at Fairport Harbor.
At home, it was the most impressive thunderstorm I had ever seen, and probably still is. It was the first time I had ever seen lightning crawl along the bottom of a cloud in mesh-like tracks. I don’t think we had any significant tree damage.
My sister called soon afterwards to say the storm blew water into the harbor and over the docks, and that fireworks were cancelled, and that I might as well pick her up. The only significant issue on the drive there was a large maple tree blown over on US Rt 20, but people could drive around it.
On the way I tried to find some news about the storm on the radio and how things were in Fairport Harbor, and found only one station that had anything to say. The announcer had been at Lakeland park where a tree fell down crushing a girl. She died pretty much in his arms. He later turned on the radio and found no coverage at all, so he went to the station where he worked and commandeered it to spend the rest of the evening as a focal point for reports and to offer assistance for families that needed to get back together. He and the station won a fairly prestigious award for that coverage.
After I got home with my sister, my brother eventually called with accounts of tents being blown down, the midway flooded, and in general a fine time. No anthropogenic fireworks there either. I think his friends parents got him home. Later I went out to see the large trees at the town green that had been blown over and house erased from its foundation from a tornado. I suspect a funnel cloud blew over the carnival and touched down a couple miles later.
I called my parents to tell them that if they heard about the local storms on the news that we were all okay. It was a bit strange to hear them sound quite relaxed about their day, tell them there’s nothing to worry about, and hear them remain sounding quite relaxed about their day. That’s the way it’s supposed to be, but it was the first time they had gone out of state leaving the three of us to fend for ourselves. It was an interesting first test!

I’ve just re-read Donna’s Delinquent Teenager. As a result, my saturated bullshit detector has just been torn from its moorings by this continent-wide blast of rain-cooled air propelled into infamy by the likes of Joe Romm. Maybe we can make a new type of hockey-related graph, shaped like a penalty box. Holy Crap!

“UPDATE: I made an error. I got two different posts mixed up related to the heatwave, conflating the video discussing the heat wave (with thunderstorm radar loop in background) by Doug Kammerer”
Ummm .. that thunderstorm loop looks to be the Derecho event as it moved through the Maryland, Delaware and DC area; Check the date and time on the NWS YouTube RADAR loop against the date/time on the NBC video:
June 29th, Friday – Check
10:55 PM CDT (RADAR) = 11:55 PM EDT (NBC tape) – Check
2012-06-29 (Friday) Storm Reports (1200 UTC – 1159 UTC) – Checkhttp://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/120629_rpts.html
Can’t vouch for the on-air personalities though … I took the question “is this unusual” referring to the weather and also the temps experienced.
Would need to see more of the NBC weathercast to be positive that the Derecho event was being discussed, but, my thoughts are they recognized the “bow echo” event (hard to miss even with a low-level of RADAR training), and the recognition that it was a Derecho event comes later on when the extent of the damage is known, as well as the type of damage (straight line and downburst winds vs ‘rotary’ winds) and that is viewed against the archived/recorded RADAR imagery.
My $.02 anyway.REPLY: Yes it is the derecho event The conflation occurred with the heading over the video at CP:

How hot is it? It is so hot that NBC Washington’s Chief Meteorologist, Doug Kammerer, explained on air “If we did not have global warming, we wouldn’t see this.”

I don’t know if that juxtaposition of the derecho event by Romm in that context, making it look like the derecho was a result was intentional or not. But Karins never said that in the video. – Anthony

So, let me review a few weather events in my life:
1955? First exposure to a tropical storm. I was on the New Jersey shore on Long Beach Island, I think this was a tropical storm a little ways off shore. I was only 4 or 5 or so, but neat and scary and I remember Dad talking about how hurricanes could blow hanging signs sideways. Several other hurricanes did mess up New England in the years around then.
1962: LBI cut in at least three places, grandparent’s summer home destroyed by a March nor’easter.
1969: I missed it, but by the time I moved to Massachusetts 1974 people were still talking about how incredible the 100 hours snow storm was.
1978: The nor’easter that shut down Massachusetts for a week. People stopped talking about 1969, they still talk about 1978.
I really have very little patience when people talk about about how weather has become more extreme recently. Unlisted are softer events like a major droubt in Ohio in the mid-60s and the cold winter of 1975-76 that disrupted river traffic on the Ohio River and ferry service around Cape Cod. It’s easy to say it’s just a repeat of weather from the last PDO/AMO cycle. The recent derecho is not part part of that cycle, nor is it novel extreme weather.

I lost a maple tree and an American cherry. The maple had good roots and snapped at the base. The cherry lost an 18″ fork from the main trunk. No damage to anything on the ground. These were the strongest straightline winds I’ve seen in a good long while.

I sometimes wonder whether some weather forecasters have ever heard of Edward Lorenz.
From Wikipedia:
“Lorenz built a mathematical model of the way air moves around in the atmosphere. As Lorenz studied weather patterns he began to realize that they did not always change as predicted.
Minute variations in the initial values of variables in his twelve-variable computer weather model (c. 1960) would result in grossly divergent weather patterns.
This sensitive dependence on initial conditions came to be known as the butterfly effect (it also meant that weather predictions from more than about a week out are generally fairly inaccurate).”
Minute changes in the computer model grow into huge errors the further into the future weather predictions are made. Lorenz stated that, “even with perfect models and perfect observations, the chaotic nature of the atmosphere would impose a finite limit of about two weeks to the predictability of the weather.”
A computer used today by the Met Office or the NOAA is millions of times faster than those used in the 1960’s, in line with Moore’s Law. But reasonably accurate weather predictions, let alone climate predictions, using this massive computing power, has progressed from around a couple of days to about seven (with a bit of luck) today.
The huge technological improvements in weather observation instruments such as satellites, radar and sophisticated weather stations have produced a massive increase in weather data without much increase in the number of days weather can be forecasted.
As Lorenz realised in the 1960’s the atmosphere is a chaotic system and despite all our technological progress we are only half way to his estimate of a two week weather forecast.
All respect to Anthony for amending the post so fast. But the point is well made in the post that some forecasters and many journalists presume to be able to identify CAGW, when talking about weather which their computers can only reasonably accurately predict a few days ahead.

We really are forgotten out here in the Midwest. We have those things all the time, and no one bats an eye. We just clean up and go on with life. If people on the coasts think they’re special and blessed with something new, they need to live out here for a bit.

A little local coverage –http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jul/01/24/tdmain01-thousands-swelter-without-power-ar-2026018/
Monday – Dominion Power recorded 90 mph winds, officially 80-85.
Friday – more straight line hurricane force winds (the derecho).
Last night (Saturday) – more straight line hurricane force winds.
Tonight (Sunday) – More storms possible, I’m keeping an eye on the radar.
All of the storms this week have been severe and we may be looking at more tonight. Trees are down all over. It’s not as bad as Isabelle or Irene, but there are lots of people sweating.

Bow-front squall lines are common as all hell across the midwest and down to the seaboard from spring to Christmas. Big ones, derechos, are not as common, but still pretty regular. Yup, that was a doozy, but there’ll be others global warming or no global warmng.

Trivia du jour: the July 2003 derchero is known locally in Memphis as “Hurricane Elvis” due to the level of damage sustained, aggravated by how the city was mostly knocked off the grid, and mass media failed to notice.

“Doug says:
July 1, 2012 at 10:33 am
I was in the Ohio Fireworks event, at the Fairport Mardi Gras, a beachfront event. Cottonwood trees were torn apart with branches 10 inches in diameter in the air. All the tents were leveled and Lake Erie was blown right up onto the midway. It was wonderful.”
A kindred spirit!
I find hurricanes full of wonder. The power of nature is a sight to behold. How anyone believes that humans could put a significant dent in her is beond my comprehension.

I think we can amend Anthony’s disclaimer*–which I’ve read half a dozen times because apparently his readers fact-checked–to “I tend not to listen to any climatological information that doesn’t agree with my opinion.” Jason Samenow’s coverage, with its rather timid “this-may-be-linked-to-global-warming” conclusion, needed no retractions, explanations, or apologies. He correctly correlates record-breaking temperatures (highest temps in 142 years of record-keeping in D.C.) with the “ring of fire” phenomenon of thunderstorms arising out of the jet stream riding on a “massive heat dome.” Climate change is less linear than derechos, it appears. But of course you’d know that if you’d fact-checked with the research that won the Nobel Prize in 2007, wouldn’t you?
*(REPLY: Yes, this is my fault, I tend not to listen to audio due to my hearing issues. I’ve removed the citation, and thank you for pointing it out. – Anthony)REPLY: Why would I look at the 2007 IPCC climate report for a local/regional weather event that happened in 2012? Your assertion makes no sense at all. Further, if you knew me, and know the trouble I have with a now 85% hearing loss, you probably would not have written something so stupid and insulting. – Anthony
P.S. You can read more about my issues with hearing in this article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/10/a-note-about-hearing-technology/

I can’t think in my 50+ yrs of memory of a more intense lightning storm. It actually wasn’t that impressive as a wind or rain-maker — 1.37″ rain in an hr & maybe a brief 45mph gust. Luckily, despite all the lightning strikes (in seemingly every direction), only 3 or 4 got as close as ~100 yards.

Cathy says:
July 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm
He correctly correlates record-breaking temperatures (highest temps in 142 years of record-keeping in D.C.) with the “ring of fire” phenomenon of thunderstorms arising out of the jet stream riding on a “massive heat dome.”
=======================
The operative term is “jet stream”, which depends upon its location.
The “ring of fire” bit, only weakens the argument.
Your appeal to authority, is only that.
Have you more fodder for the cannon ?

Actually, there was an earlier derecho at the end of May that had more bite (wind & rain) here in w MD than this last one.
I remember a powerful derecho going thru Blacksburg, VA sometime around ~June 1990. Roof shingles & trees were everywhere. Blacksburg airport recorded a 102 mph gust.

If this were a first time event that would have never happened without CAGW, then there wouldn’t have already bee a name with which to describe it. Because “derecho” had already been invented, there is the implication that such events have happened before CAGW.

Wow, seems we have an infrastructure problem getting power where it needs to be. What a nasty weather event.
I look at those radar compilations and wonder how things would be with 1000’s of square miles of wind turbines and solar panels impacted by the same. Not an TRANSMISSION problem anylonger?
The simple word, creation, comes to mind.
I don’t look forward to that,,,,,,really, does anyone ?

mfo says July 1, 2012 at 11:28 am
…
The huge technological improvements in weather observation instruments such as satellites, radar and sophisticated weather stations have produced a massive increase in weather data without much increase in the number of days weather can be forecasted.
…

… and still a sparse placement of balloon launch sites from which upper-air soundings (using Radiosondes) are initiated twice a day, and from the obtained atmospheric parameters from those twice a day launches the various forecast models are initialized (initial conditions entered, then the ‘model’ is started); IOW we still have ‘shortcomings’ in the system (inadequate initial data both spatially and temporally to ‘initialize’ the models).
Although, to give the NWS credit, they will launch additional sounding ‘balloons’ when conditions warrant.
List – U.S. LAND-BASED RAWINSONDE STATIONS –
. . . http://www.ofcm.gov/fmh3/text/append-c.html
Map – Radiosonde launch sites in US –
. . . http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~bordoni/ese132/docs/April2612.pdf
Routine radiosonde launches –
. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde#Routine_radiosonde_launches
“… Nearly all routine radiosonde launches occur 45 minutes before the official observation time of 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC”
.

wazzel12 says July 1, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Wow, seems we have an infrastructure problem getting power where it needs to be. What a nasty weather event.
I look at those radar compilations and wonder how things would be with 1000′s of square miles of wind turbines and solar panels impacted by the same. Not an TRANSMISSION problem anylonger?
…

Average wind generation being what it is (or isn’t), would that really be a problem?
During the little heat wave we had in Texas last week wind power output was often insignificant; shift the demand MWh figure three decimal positions to the right then divide that by half and that was roughly what wind-power was generating (wind speeds were _low_) … and I don’t think THAT part of the country (Maryland, Delaware etc) is defined as being in a “Class II” (or better) wind area like Texas is either …
.

Cathy says:July 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm
…
He correctly correlates record-breaking temperatures (highest temps in 142 years of record-keeping in D.C.) with the “ring of fire” phenomenon …

Not a ‘meteorological construct’ (i.e.: term) I am familiar with; where and when and by whom was this minted?
The ‘Joe Romm Group” (think) team perhaps?
.
.
“Ring of Fire” Google references – nothing about weather events on the first two pages returned …
.

Anthony, I have tried to make contact.
It is time to raise the bar. Live net interaction realting to the posts here would be a thing.
I will invest, along with others to make that happen.
Just sayin, opportunity knocks, and now!
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVLhZ2-pCRQ ]

Thanks for the post and the corrections via comments. We moved west from Iowa in 1974 and miss the weather (fireworks) (from PA, GA, OH, & IA). Friends and family all over back there.
The commenter known as Cathy said
“the research that won the Nobel Prize in 2007”
This silly award was not for research. It was a “peace” prize for
“ their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”
Translation: to further the UN’s Agenda 21
So, Cathy, here is a book you might want to read:
Trixy, Or, “Those Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones”
by Maggie Symington (1885)

_Jim says:
July 1, 2012 at 8:01 pm
> “Ring of Fire” Google references – nothing about weather events on the first two pages returned ….
I’ve heard that on various TV Met segments for the last few years. It’s sort of a cute name, but it’s also sort of useful.
Take a big ol’ hot summer high, and the jet stream tends to flow around it, draging along and feeding various sized storms including tornado producers.
Try Googling |”ring of fire” thunderstorm|. I found several new references, here’s a Joe D’Aleo reference from 2009, it’s a good introduction.http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=187 says in part

Ring of Fire Thunderstorms
By Joe D’Aleo
Monday, June 29, 2009
In the late spring and summer, when a heat ridge builds in the atmosphere, there is often a concentration of strong thunderstorm clusters that rapidly rotate around the ridge. They feed off the heat in the ridge where subsidence caps convection. North of the ridge even weak disturbances in the flow can kick off thunderstorms that can organize into large clusters. They often produce heavy rains, hail, very strong winds and tornadoes.

The alarmist claiming this was “unique” and “never before seen” (at least in my area where it hit around 10pm) was confusing since they already had a name for it.
I am continually amazed at how contorted alarmists get in trying to blame everything on a phantom.

Brian says:
July 1, 2012 at 10:03 am
I admire your research and whole heartily agree with you. However…first off, Doug Kammerer is the meteorologist in the video, not Bill Karins (name is in the title of the video). Second, I believe he was referring to the temperatures (heat) , not the Derecho event that had occurred. Not once did he mention the Derecho in his explanation of “global warming.” Nice explanation of a Derecho, though.
REPLY: Yes, this is my fault, I tend not to listen to audio due to my hearing issues. I’ve removed the citation, and thank you for pointing it out. – Anthony
==========================================================================
Admitting to and correcting mistakes. No wonder you’re not a “climate scientist”! 😎

Fred Beloit says:
July 1, 2012 at 10:22 am
On another note, an “all-time record” doesn’t mean for all time because thermometers weren’t around for all time, only since about the 1850s in the mid-west. So maybe this fellow is a jokester and not a real weather man?
====================================================================
Maybe he doesn’t read tree rings?

Cathy says:
July 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm
…… But of course you’d know that if you’d fact-checked with the research that won the Nobel Prize in 2007, wouldn’t you?
====================================================================
The Nobel Prize used to be an award for a real achievement. Now it indicates about as much as Michael Moore or AL Gore’s Academy Awards for “Documentaries”.

wazzel12 says:
July 1, 2012 at 7:32 pm
I look at those radar compilations and wonder how things would be with 1000′s of square miles of wind turbines and solar panels impacted by the same.
==============================================================
A similar thought occured to me. I still have friends without power here in central Ohio. At least “all” that needs to be done is reconnect the power lines, not rebuild the “power” plants.
What does an 80 or 90 mph (128 or 145 kph) gust do to a solar panel or a wind turbine?

These are spears of cold air driving into the midst of summer. Now, according to the tipping point theory of AGW, the grand Horse Latitudes Highs are expanding and taking over the mid latitudes. That would not square with more frequent or stronger Derechos.

_Jim says:
July 1, 2012 at 8:01 pm
> “Ring of Fire” Google references – nothing about weather events on the first two pages returned ….
Ric Werme says July 2, 2012 at 5:00 am
I’ve heard that on various TV Met segments for the last few years. It’s sort of a cute name, but it’s also sort of useful. …

Okay, I’m going with it was minted for ‘consumer’ purposes and not serious meteorologists … I was looking for a ‘white paper’ on the subject Ric; the consumer stuff oozes out of the ‘tube’ or on most common websites (both of which I’ve had my fill) … let’s say we just stick with the proper terms and identify the REAL conditions? (Newspapers gotta sell papers and TV ppl have to ‘jazz up’ the wx …)
No fire involved; advection and serious J/kg (Joules per kilogram) CAPE values (making for a warm, most ‘powder keg’ air mass in the boundary layer), moist air (or maybe cold air) in mid levels as opposed to simply warm dry air (IOW no ‘cap’ (capping inversion or Cinh in mid levels)), aided by the jet stream in the proper position (Bernoulli effect or principle; yes, it works in the atmosphere too) … do you see where I’m going with this versus ‘nursery rhymes for babies’ or synthesizing new terms that at the least overlap with other common usage (The ‘Ring of Fire’ in the Pacific re: active volcanism )?
Maybe my exposure to the old-time Mets like WW2-era trained Harold Taft (here in the DFW market years back) has set my standard HIGH for TV mets; maybe I should lower mine now to coincide with present market conditions? Socrates, make that two to go on the Hemlock …
.

Meanwhile back at the farm, Climate Central makes it’s debut (first time I’ve ever heard of them_ on NPR Dianne Rehm’s Show . . .
Dr. Smote along with Dr. Asbury Sallenger Oceanographer, U.S. Geological Survey and Philip Mote Professor, Oregon State University were featured . . . with one other.http://thedianerehmshow.org/http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=16272
Any comments or criticisms out there?

Okay, I’m going with it was minted for ‘consumer’ purposes and not serious meteorologists … I was looking for a ‘white paper’ on the subject Ric; the consumer stuff oozes out of the ‘tube’ or on most common websites (both of which I’ve had my fill) … let’s say we just stick with the proper terms and identify the REAL conditions? (Newspapers gotta sell papers and TV ppl have to ‘jazz up’ the wx …)

I’d love to hear your defense of the term “bombogenesis,” which most definitely is a “Real Meteorological Term.”

Ric Werme says:
July 3, 2012 at 6:14 pm
…
I’d love to hear your defense of the term “bombogenesis,” which most definitely is a “Real Meteorological Term.”

And your source on that is: ______________________ (fill in the blank; please feel free to cite grandmother, grandfather, aunts and uncles, living or deceased, or on-air personalities whether active now or not, as well as any ‘white papers’ whether published and reviewed in any journals or simply ‘put out there’ for any purpose including education, debate or entertainment.)
The AMS Glossary of Meteorology returns: “Unable to find term ‘Bombogenesis’ ”
Under “bomb” however we have: “An extratropical surface cyclone with a central pressure that falls on the average at least 1 mb/h for 24 hours [straight].” after F. Sanders, and J. R. Gyakum, 1980, Synoptic–dynamic climatology of the “bomb”, Monthly Weather Review, 108, 1589–1606.
. . . . http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=bomb1
It seems ‘popular press’ may have coined that term after cyclogenesis: “Any development or strengthening of cyclonic circulation in the atmosphere; the opposite of cyclolysis [weakening or the opposite of cyclogenesis].”
. . . . http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=cyclogenesis1
The conclusion can be made from the foregoing that someone made the connection between cyclogenesis and the formation of a ‘bomb’ of a cyclone forming hence the composite term ‘bombogenesis’ indicating the ongoing fall in (central) pressure at or near the rate of 1 mb/hr and expected to extend over a time period of 24 hr minimum (in order to meet the unofficial criteria for ‘bombogenesis’) …
The term looks to have been coined for those cyclones that have moved offshore in the NE (states), encountered the warm Gulf waters flowing north in the Atlantic, and enhancing their strength as storms with lowered (central) pressure along with all else that goes with it … creating what is described as a Nor’easter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nor'easter
.

Ric Werme says:
July 3, 2012 at 6:14 pm
…
I’d love to hear your defense of the term “bombogenesis,” which most definitely is a “Real Meteorological Term.”
And your source on that is: ______________________ (fill in the blank; please feel free to cite grandmother, grandfather, aunts and uncles, living or deceased, or on-air personalities whether active now or not, as well as any ‘white papers’ whether published and reviewed in any journals or simply ‘put out there’ for any purpose including education, debate or entertainment.)

Looks like it’s still more regional than I thought.
grandmother, grandfather, aunts and uncles, living or deceased, – none are meteorologists. My father was one in WWII in California, but that predates the term.
On air personalities – I thought you disclaimed them all. (In New England the TV Mets have personalities, but they also don’t survive long if they can’t handle our weather!)
Todd Gross used to be on Boston TV, one of the best, but a bit irascible. I bought my Davis VP weather station from him.http://www.toddgross.com/todd_gross_new_england_we/2006/12/bombogenesis_an.html
He refers to a Jeff Haby page, Jeff knows his stuff – http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/188/ OTOH
The Tauton MA and Gray ME NWS mets use it in their discussions, one, from State College PA is preserved at http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/winter_weather/:
“SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT IT SETS OFF ALL THE BELLS AND
WHISTLES. THE 12Z ECMWF ALONG WITH THE NEWEST 00Z GFS AND CANADIAN (COMPUTER MODEL) RUNS NOW PORTRAY A MAJOR EAST COAST STORM COMING OUT OF THE DEEP
SOUTH AND RIGHT INTO THE SWEET SPOT FOR CENTER-JUMPING BOMBOGENESIS
AND DEEP SNOW FOR CENTRAL PA WITH THE MAIN SFC LOW PASSING JUST
TO OUR SE. MANY MEMBERS OF THE 18Z GEFS PUT OVER AN INCH OF
LIQUID EQIV PRECIP OVER CENTRAL PA SAT-SUN.
I wouldn’t consider an NWS discussion (even one tamed down like this one) as “I’m going with it was minted for ‘consumer’ purposes and not serious meteorologists”. Well, it probably was, but some of the storm lovers in the NWS like the term too.
> The AMS Glossary of Meteorology returns: “Unable to find term ‘Bombogenesis’ ”
Perhaps they should add it. If there’s a bomb, it must have formed somehow.

The conclusion can be made from the foregoing that someone made the connection between cyclogenesis and the formation of a ‘bomb’ of a cyclone forming hence the composite term ‘bombogenesis’ indicating the ongoing fall in (central) pressure at or near the rate of 1 mb/hr and expected to extend over a time period of 24 hr minimum (in order to meet the unofficial criteria for ‘bombogenesis’) …
The term looks to have been coined for those cyclones that have moved offshore in the NE (states), encountered the warm Gulf waters flowing north in the Atlantic, and enhancing their strength as storms with lowered (central) pressure along with all else that goes with it … creating what is described as a Nor’easter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nor'easter

Thank you , I know what a nor’easter is – I wrote the post here for the 50th anniversary of the Great Atlantic Storm of 1962, and have a web page on the Blizzard of ’78 (the second one, the first clobbered MI, IN, and OH). They’re one of the reasons I live in New England.
An ordinary nor’easter doesn’t bomb out. Bombogenesis generally happens in the transition area beyond the Gulf stream, typically between NJ and the Gulf of Maine. I suspect the influx of cold Atlantic or Canadian air is important. It would be really neat if hurricane hunter planes could investigate, but those could be some rather risky missions due to severe icing.

Ric Werme says July 4, 2012 at 11:10 pm
…
Ric, I saw a bit of dodge, some weave, a bit of straw-man arg, a word-put-in-my-mouth in that response all the while my goal was one of appeasement regarding your supplication: I’d love to hear your defense of the term “bombogenesis,” (which I think I did admirably well, thank you.)
I saw no comment or review of yours on the Monthly Weather Review ‘paper’ (F. Sanders, and J. R. Gyakum, 1980, Synoptic–dynamic climatology of the “bomb” ) I cited and from which the term probably, with little doubt originated; can I score my previous post as ‘+1’ (which was then followed by, well, some dodging, some weaving, etc as a rebuttal??????)
(To make it perfectly clear, since it unclear that you looked at the paper, the paper is available at the link a previous post of mine at _no cost_ for a downloadable document in pdf form.)
BTW, I went ‘elementary’ regarding a def. of a Nor’easter for the sake of a) being complete and b) those that may not be as knowledgeable of said subject of Nor’easters as you (or I even) …
.

Ric, I saw a bit of dodge, some weave, a bit of straw-man arg, a word-put-in-my-mouth in that response all the while my goal was one of appeasement regarding your supplication: I’d love to hear your defense of the term “bombogenesis,” (which I think I did admirably well, thank you.)
I saw no comment or review of yours on the Monthly Weather Review ‘paper’ (F. Sanders, and J. R. Gyakum, 1980, Synoptic–dynamic climatology of the “bomb” ) I cited and from which the term probably, with little doubt originated; can I score my previous post as ‘+1′ (which was then followed by, well, some dodging, some weaving, etc as a rebuttal??????)

I didn’t realize we were keeping score, enjoy your points.

(To make it perfectly clear, since it unclear that you looked at the paper, the paper is available at the link a previous post of mine at _no cost_ for a downloadable document in pdf form.)

I didn’t. As you can tell, I didn’t get my reply out until 0200, and my manager sort of expects me into work around 1000.
I was working on a update to my sadly neglected RGGI page, and will work on that more tonight. Also, I want to spend more time reviewing http://nhcollaborative.org/benchmarkreport/ and see if I can come up with a some worthwhile comment on the NH Public Radio talk show tomorrow about it. 0900-1000, I may be late to work….
When my time is free, I might take you up on your _no cost_ offer.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy